1. Newt Gingrich refers to Donald Trump as "an American icon." The fact that Gingrich may be correct in his assessment--a scathing verdict on 21st-century America, indeed--is besides the point. If Trump were merely an egotistical, self-promoting showman of the first order (which he assuredly is), that would be one thing, but he continues to inflict himself upon our national discourse. For example, only Trump is still left still flogging the Birther issue. Newt's cozying-up to Trump is not just unseemly, it is loathsome. (This was one of the late Milton Burton's favorite adjectives, and I feel confident he would approve its usage in this context.)
2. Newt gave some idea of what a Gingrich Cabinet would look like when he promised to select John Bolton as Secretary of State. Such talk is not funny, but should send chills up the spine of anyone who remembers the run-up to our invasion of Iraq. Bolton as Secretary of State would be a good trigger to cash-out everything and buy that little shack in the jungles of Costa Rica.
3. Finally, Newt expounds on the Israeli/Palestinian issue:
Remember there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places.
Ah, so the "Palestinians" are no such thing--they are just Arabs. The Syrians are not Syrians, they are just Arabs. The Iraqis are not Iraqis, they are just Arabs. And since these so-called "Palestinians" are just Arabs, then they could/should go elsewhere in the Arab world. I'm sure the "Palestinian" family--Muslim or Christian, no matter--would have no objection to leaving the olive grove their family has tended for the last 600 years and relocate to one of the swanky refugee camps in a neighboring Arab country. Gingrich should perhaps be more careful in labeling people as "invented." Before 1948, there was no such thing as an "Israeli." And Americans, the quintessential "invented" people, should be the last to make that accusation against any other. In last night's debate, Gingrich did not back away from this statement, but actually doubled-down into an even more severe statement (they're all terrorists.) Of course, they were all vying to see which one could become AIPAC's favorite whore. What do you call it when the prostitute pays the trick, instead of the other way around? Yep, loathsome's the word for it.